Torah Community Connections

Week 69 - Monday - 19 March 2001

NEDARIM: CHAPTER 4: MISHNAH 2

If one is prohibited by vow from deriving any benefit from his fellow, he may pay for him his shekel, and he may repay his debt, and he may restore to him his lost property. In a place where they take payment for it, the benefit falls to the Temple property.

Kehati

This mishnah teaches which things do not entail benefit, and a person may do for one who is prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit from him.

If one is prohibited by vow from deriving any benefit from his fellow -- e.g., A is prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit from B, as was explained in the previous mishnah, he may pay for him his shekel -- B may contribute on his behalf the half a shekel which every Jew is obligated to pay annually to the Temple chamber, for public sacrifices (as is explained in Tractate Shekalim), and he may repay his debt -- similarly, B is permitted to pay A's debt to his creditor, since he does not put anything into A's hand, but rather into the hands of others, to the Temple treasurer or to his creditor, this is merely a case of "driving away a lion from his neighbor's property" (Gemara), i.e., B merely prevents A losing and removes his creditors, so that they will not claim from him, and the prevention of loss and the removal of a claim are not included in the prohibition of deriving benefit.

And he may restore to him his lost property -- if B found an article lost by A, he may return it to him. This is not a case of benefit to A, and merely fulfills the mitzvah of returning a lost article.

In a place where they take payment for it -- where payment is made for the return of a lost article, and B does not want to take payment from A, and as a result there is actual benefit to A, the benefit -- of the payment -- falls to the Temple property -- i.e., A is not permitted to benefit from the payment which B waived, and he must give it to the Temple treasury; since benefit from B is prohibited to him like consecrated property, all benefit which comes to him from B is consecrated property. Bartenura and Tiferet Yisrael, following the Gemara, interpret "In a place where they take payment for it" as follows: e.g., each of them is prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit from the other; even in such a case each one is permitted to return the others' lost article, for he merely fulfills the mitzvah of returning a lost article, and the mitzvot are not to be regarded as a personal advantage; if, however, it was customary to take payment for returning lost articles, and as a result, he would derive benefit if he were to take the payment, and if he were not to take the payment, he would benefit his fellow, therefore the benefit goes to the Temple.

NEDARIM: CHAPTER 4: MISHNAH 3

And he may set aside his terumah and his ma'asarot with his knowledge, and he may offer for him the bird-nests of zavin, zavot, and women after childbirth, hata'ot and ashamot, and he may teach him Midrash, Halachot, and Aggadot, but he may not teach him Scripture; but he may teach his sons and his daughters Scripture. And he may maintain his wife and his children, even though he is liable for their support. And he may not maintain his animal, whether unclean or clean. Rabbi Eliezer says, he maintains the unclean, but does not maintain the clean. They said to him, What is the difference between unclean and clean? He said to them, For the clean one, its life belongs to Heaven and its body belongs to him, and the unclean one, its life and its body belong to Heaven. They said to him, Even the unclean one, its life belongs to Heaven and its body to him, for if he desires, he sells it to non-Jews, or feeds it to the dogs.

Kehati

This mishnah is a continuation of the previous one, and elaborates on the case of A being prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit from B.

And he -- B -- may set aside his terumah -- of A, who is prevented by a vow from deriving benefit from him, and his ma'asrot with his -- A's, knowledge -- e.g., A said, anyone who desires to set aside may come and set aside, but he may not say outright to B to set aside for him, because he would be making him his agent, and A derives benefit by B fulfilling his instructions. Hameiri and Tosefot Rabbi Akiva Eiger explain that B requires A's knowledge only if he sets aside from A's produce; if, however, B sets aside from his own produce on behalf of A, then he does not require A's knowledge, and he is permitted to do this for him, just as he is permitted to repay his debt, as was taught in the previous mishnah, and -- if B is a priest, he may offer for him -- for A,

The bird-nests of zavin, zavot -- the two turtledoves or young pigeons which a man or woman suffering from flux is obligated to bring on the eighth day, after the seven days of purification, and women after childbirth -- as it is written regarding women after childbirth, "And when the days of her purification are fulfilled for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt-offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin-offering.... And if her means do not suffice for a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves, or two young pigeons...." (Lev. 12:6-8), hata'ot -- sin offerings -- and ashamot -- guilt offerings -- and likewise all other sacrifices; this mishnah mentions these sacrifices in order further to clarify, that although these bird offerings, as well as the hatat and the asham of the metzora, permit their owners to eat sacrificial meat, the kohen is nevertheless permitted to offer them on behalf of the person prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit from him, because the kohanim act on behalf of the Almighty, and not the person offering the sacrifice, and this is only a case of indirect benefit: and he -- B --

May teach him -- A -- Midrash -- the exegesis of Torah verses, such as Mekhilta, Sifra, and Sifrei, halachot, and Aggadot -- i.e., he teaches him the entire Oral Law free of charge, and this is not benefit prohibited to A, since one is forbidden remuneration for teaching Torah, and this constitutes only the fulfillment of a mitzvah, but he may not teach him Scripture -- free of charge, for a person who teaches Scripture may take payment for teaching the traditional melody of reading the Torah, and if he does not take payment from A, he provides him with benefit;

But he -- B -- may teach his -- A's -- sons and his daughters Scripture, for although the father is commanded to teach his sons Torah, and B absolves A of his obligation, this does not constitute benefit which is prohibited to A, since the mitzvot are not to be regarded as a personal advantage, and B is merely fulfilling a mitzvah in place of A;

And he -- B -- may maintain his -- A's -- wife and his children, even though he -- A -- is liable for their support -- since B does not give anything directly to A, as was explained in the law taught in the previous mishnah, "he may contribute his shekel, and he may repay his debt,"

And he may not maintain his animal, whether unclean or clean -- since its fattening constitutes actual benefit for A.

Rabbi Eleazar says, he maintains the unclean, but does not maintain the clean -- B is forbidden to feed the clean animal of A, but he is permitted to feed his unclean animal. They -- the Sages, said to him, What is the difference -- what reason did you see to distinguish -- between unclean and clean? He said to them, For the clean one, its soul belongs to Heaven and its body belongs to him -- regarding the clean animal, even after its soul belongs to heaven, i.e., after being slaughtered, A nevertheless benefits from its body, by eating its flesh; he therefore derives benefit from its being fattened, and -- but -- the unclean one -- the unclean animal, its soul and its body belong to Heaven -- when it dies, he will not derive any benefit from its carcass, and he therefore does not derive benefit from its fattening.

They -- the Sages, said to him -- Rabbi Eleazar, Even the unclean one, its soul belongs to Heaven and its body to him -- A derives benefit also from the carcass of the unclean animal, for if he desires, he sells it to non-Jews, or feeds it to the dogs -- and thereby derives benefit from its fattening. B is therefore forbidden to feed the animal of A, who is prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit from him, whether the animal is clean or unclean.

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives